Tournament: Winston Churchill Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: EarWar SG | Judge: Nanavati, Sunay
I affirm. Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.
The question posed by the topic presupposes our relation to language. The effects of hate speech reveal our fundamental dependence on language, and therefore on others, as the condition under which our lives are possible.
Our responsibility to the other, as the foundation for any value, must therefore be the standard for the round.
On this basis, the regulation of speech must be rejected. The attempt to regulate speech attempts to deny our fundamental vulnerability to harm in language, and therefore eliminates the relation to the other and destroys the possibility of true ethical responsibility.
Butler 97 Judith. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. Pg 26-28
The argument that hate...

AND

...subject's linguistic death.

The attempt to regulate hate speech reaffirms the assumption of the sovereignty of the individual and the ability of the state to decide what counts as hate speech.  The regulation of speech is inevitably conservative, and has demonstrably been used to both legitimize violent and normalizing speech while targeting minorities for violating norms related to respectability. The regulation of speech also denies one’s ability to re-appropriate hate speech against the structures of power that give hate speech its efficacy, thus destroying the possibility of effective resistance against oppression.
Butler 97 Judith. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. Pg 96-102
Hate speech is a...

AND

...pain and promise?

The ability to re-signify hate speech is essential to revolutionary politics. Only the affirmative defends the conditions under which it is possible to properly critique and resist oppression. Furthermore, our understanding of the productive nature of speech is key to the ability to analyze and resist oppression, meaning that the affirmative is a prerequisite to any other impacts.
Butler 97 Judith. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. Pg 157-159
Indeed, I would argue...

AND

...with that past.

Tournament: Winston Churchill Classic | Round: 1 | Opponent: CleBro KR | Judge: Tagalog, Maris
I advocate Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.

Analytics

The word “ought” is
2. (used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like):
As defined by dictionary.com

Analytics

Thus, the value is justice. Institutions have a moral obligation to be just.
Young 1990 Iris Marion. Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, affiliated with the Center for Gender Studies and the Human Rights program @ UChicago. Justice and the Politics of Difference, published by Princeton University Press in 1990. pp. 91
I have defined justice...

AND

... condition of social justice.

To act justly, the Criterion is maximizing human flourishing. Every person and institution has an obligation to permit human flourishing by getting rid of oppressive rules like censorship—this is critical to allow the full expression of values and promote justice.
Young 2010 Iris Marion. Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, affiliated with the Center for Gender Studies and the Human Rights program @ UChicago. Responsibility for Justice, published by Oxford University Press in 2010. pp.137-9
Some philosophers reject...

AND 

... violent conflict among them.

Frame the debate of freedom through its necessity – vote for the debater that shows you the more necessary route to take
Rebecca Gose Lynch, Law Clerk-10th Circuit, 2003, “Pawns of the State or Priests of Democracy? Analyzing Professors’ Academic Freedom Rights Within the State’s Managerial Realm,” California Law Review, 91 Calif. L. Rev. 1061, p. 1090-2
Since the first judicial...

AND

...to the university's functioning.

Contention 1 is Inherency
UNIVERSITIES REGULARLY SUPPRESS STUDENT SPEECH IN MANY WAYS
Kelly Sarabyn 2008, Legal Fellow University of Virginia, , “The 26th Amendment Resolving the Federal Circuit Split Over College Students’ First Amendment Rights,” Texas Journal on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights, Fall, 14 Tex. J. C.L. and C.R. 27, p. 33-5
Through policies and practices, ...

AND

...accordingly, a pressing matter.

Contention 2 is the 1st amendment
REGARDLESS OF THE VALUES OF FREE SPEECH – IT’S PURPOSE IS TO MAINTAIN A FUNCTIONING LIBERAL DEMOCRACY
Jennifer Elrod, Attorney, 2003/2004, “Academic, Public Employee Speech, and the Public University,” The Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal, 22 Buff. Pub. Interest L.J. 1, p. 29-30
Similarly, Professor Kent...

AND

...discussion of political matters

FREE SPEECH VITAL TO AUTONOMOUS DECISION-MAKING
Filimon Peonidis, assistant professor of the Department of Philosophy at Aristotle University, 1998, Law and Philosophy, pg. 3
Now, the significance of...

AND

...its early stages of development.

Contention 3 is the Marketplace of Ideas
UNIVERSITIES ARE THE BEST INSTITUTIONS TO REPRESENT “THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS”
Evan G. Siegel, J.D. Candidate, 1990, “Closing the Campus Gates to Free Expression: The Regulation of Offensive Speech at Colleges and Universities,” Emory Law Journal, Fall, 39 Emory L.J. 1351, p. 1387-90
The educational mission...

AND

...safety, and privacy laws. 

UNIVERSITY MARKETPLACE IS UNIQUE
David F. McGowan and Ragesh K. Tangri, Law Clerk DC Court of Appeals and J.D. Candidate-Berkeley, 1991, “A Libertarian Critique of University Restrictions of Offensive Speech,” California Law Review, May, 7 Calif. L. Rev. 825, p. 906
The university marketplace is...

AND

...until they are accepted.

SPEECH CODES UNDERMINE THE UNIVERSITY’S MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS
Azhar Majeed, Legal Fellow-Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 2009, “Defying the Constitution: The Rise, Persistence, and Prevalence of Campus Speech Codes,” The Georgetown Journal of Law Public Policy, 7 Geo. J.L.  Pub Pol’y 481, p. 484-5
Currently, however, speech...

AND

...to censor protected expression.

ACADEMIC FREEDOM CRITICAL– THE RESULT IS DOGMATISM AND THE END OF AMERICAN SOCIETY
Nicholas K. Tygesson, J.D. Candidate, 2013, “Cracking Open the Classroom Door: Developing a First Amendment Standard for Curricular Speech,” Northwestern University Law Review, Summer, 107 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1917, p. 1936-7
In addition to free speech...

AND

...of the First Amendment." 

Next is Pre-Emption
FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS OFFENSIVE SPEECH
Clay Calvert and Robert D. Richards, Communication and Journalism Professors-Penn State, 2004, “Fans and the First Amendment: Cheering and Jeering in College Sports,” Virginia Sports and Entertainment Law Journal, Fall, 4 Va. Sports and Ent. L.J. 1, p. 7-8
The cheering at the...

AND

...important - than the latter.

SPEECH CODES COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO UNIVERSITY MISSION AND FOSTERING BETTER RACE RELATIONS—VICTIMIZE RACIAL MINORITIES
Catherine B. Johnson, J.D. Candidate, 2000, “Stopping Hate Without Stifling Speech: Re-Examining the Merits of Hate Speech Codes on University Campuses,” Fordham Urban Law Journal, August, 27 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1821, p. 1859-60
Critics of hate speech...

AND

... sets foot on campus. 

HATE SPEECH RESTRICTIONS TREAT THE SYMPTOM—NOT THE UNDERLYING RACISM
David F. McGowan and Ragesh K. Tangri, Law Clerk DC Court of Appeals and J.D. Candidate-Berkeley, 1991, “A Libertarian Critique of University Restrictions of Offensive Speech,” California Law Review, May, 7 Calif. L. Rev. 825, p. 893
The question is the...

AND

...given belief may be.